Transcript Document 7524149

Dallas ICM
Pioneer Site
Stage 1 Lessons
Learned
Webinar
July 24, 2008
Why ICM is needed in the US 75 Corridor
• DFW 5th most congested region in US (#1 worst region
for growth in congestion)
• DFW population is 6 million and adding 1 million every 8
years
• US 75 is a critical, regional corridor
• Travel demand and congestion continue to grow
• No ability to expand freeway, arterials, or alternate
routes
• Other freeways are scheduled for construction
• Significant employers in corridor
• Numerous special events throughout year
• Showcase for ITS integration in the region
US 75 Corridor Networks
• US 75 Freeway with
Continuous Frontage
Roads
• HOV lanes on US 75 and
IH-635
• Dallas North Tollway
• 167 Miles of Arterials
• DART Bus Network
Including Express Service
• DART Light Rail
– Red and Blue Lines
Description of Corridor
• Corridor Assets
– Diverse transportation infrastructure
– State-of-the-art freeway and frontage
road system
– Recently completed 5-level interchange
– HOV, toll and SOV lanes
– Parallel arterials
– Two light rail transit lines
– Bus transit
• Management Centers
–
–
–
–
3 city TMCs
state TMC
transit TMC
toll authority TMC
Corridor Summary Statistics
Freeways with Frontage Roads
272 Lane-miles
High Occupancy Vehicle Facilities
31 lane-miles
Light Rail Transit System (DART)
2 lines – 20 stations
Bus Transit System (DART)
30 bus routes
Dallas Signal System
500 signals
Plano Signal System
196 signals
Richardson Signal System
120 signals
Arterials Streets
167 center-line miles
Park and Ride Lots (DART)
9 lots
Pedestrian / Bike Trails
12 miles
Tollways (NTTA)
105 lane-miles
Koorosh Olyai, P.E.
ICM Pioneer Project Team Lead
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Dallas ICM Team
• Agency Partners:
– Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Lead)
– Cities of Dallas, Highland Park,
Richardson, Plano, and University
Park
– North Central Texas Council of
Governments
– North Texas Tollway Authority
– TxDOT Dallas District
• Technical Support Team:
–
–
–
–
Telvent Farradyne (Lead)
Texas Transportation Institute
Southern Methodist University
University of Texas @ Arlington
Operating Agency Team
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Abed Abukar – Operations Technology
Mahesh Kuimil – HOV Operations
Timothy Newby – Bus Operations
Larry Gaul – Light Rail Operations
Donnie Thompson – Paratransit
Allan Gorman – IT Lead
City of Dallas
Elizabeth Ramirez – Lead
Mark Titus – Signal Operations
Town of Highland Park
Meran Dadgostar - Lead
North Central Texas Council of
Governments
Nattalie Bettger – ITS Lead
North Texas Tollway Authority
Yang Ouyang - Lead
City of Plano
Lloyd Neal - Lead
City of Richardson
Robert Saylor - Lead
City of University Park
Bob Smallwood – Lead
Texas Department of Transportation
- Dallas
Kelly Selman – Agency Lead
Andy Oberlander – Traffic Engineering
Rick Cortez – Freeway Operations
EMS Providers
DART
City of Arlington
City of Dallas
City of Grand Prairie
City of Irving
City of Plano
City of Richardson
Technical Support Team
Texas Transportation Institute
Chris Poe – Lead
Ed Seymour – Standards
Southern Methodist University
Khaled Abdelghany - Lead
University of Texas at Arlington
Sia Ardekani – Lead
Steve Mattingly - Evaluation
Telvent Farradyne
Ahmad Sadegh – Program Manager
Kevin Miller – ICM Lead
Regional Support for ICM
• Regional ITS MOU executed
in 1999
• Regional ITS Committees
Will Provide Oversight
• Programmed Funding for
Regional Integration
– Regional communication
system
– Center-to-Center (C2C) plug-ins
Regional ITS Elements in Place
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dallas Area-wide ITS Plan (1996, 2006 update)
Individual agency ITS Plans
Regional Architecture
Regional Concept of Operations
Regional Traveler Information Website
Regional Telecommunication
C2C Video and Data Sharing
Regional Data Archiving
Statewide interoperable tolling system
Regional ITS Elements in Place
Freeway System
• US 75 Corridor fully instrumented by 2007
• New DalTrans Transportation Management Center
– Integrate TxDOT, DART, and Dallas County Sheriff’s Dept
• CCTV Cameras
• Detection Systems
• Dynamic Message Signs
– With posted travel times
• Mobility Assistance Patrol
Arterial System
• Central Systems
– All signals connected
– C2C interface funded
– 911 Integration
• Surveillance cameras
– Video to wreckers
• Arterial DMS
– Freeway integration funded
• Traffic Signal Priority
DART Transit System (13 member cities)
•
•
•
•
Light Rail Transit
Park-and-Ride Lots
Managed / HOV Lanes
Bus System
– Local, Express
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commuter Rail Connection
Automated Vehicle Location
Centralized Transit Control
Passenger Alert System
Transit Signal Priority
300 Member Transit Police
US 75 ICM Vision
Operate the US 75 Corridor in a
true multimodal, integrated,
efficient, and safe fashion where
the focus is on the transportation
customer.
Physical Architecture
Dallas – US 75 ICM Strategies
• Possible ICM Strategies:
– Performance measure approach
• Multi-modal and/or modal independent
• Common measures across agencies and jurisdictions
• Comparative measures shared with all agencies
– Improved traveler information and operational
strategies to promote modal shift
– Enhanced data sharing among stakeholders and
responders
– Development of sophisticated tools
• Modeling for evaluation
• Real-time modeling for operational prediction and
optimization
Decision Support Tool
Dallas – Goals for ICM Corridor
• Transportation Goals
– Increase corridor
throughput
– Improve travel time
reliability
– Improved incident
management
– Enable intermodal travel
decisions
• Community Goals
– Encourage business
development
– Sustain economic activity
– Enable emergency
services
Source: FHWA Urban Congestion Report
Lessons Learned - Operational
• Only “extra” capacity in US 75 corridor is on rail transit
• Individual agencies operating their systems very well
• Operational opportunities exist with collaborative
operation
– May require penalizing one user group to benefit overall corridor
– Example – Freeway incident
• May require decreasing cross street arterial green time in favor of
more arterial green time parallel to freeway for diverted trips
• Need for decision support tool to assess those
operational trade-offs
• Need for better real-time arterial data
Lessons Learned - Institutional
• Good partnerships already in place
• Operational trust already exists from traffic management
team, incident management cooperation, and HOV lane
operation
• Build on existing agreements / MOUs
• Build on existing oversight
– ICM reports to existing Regional ITS Committee
Lessons Learned - Technical
• Need for enhancing regional data sharing
– Must accelerate existing data sharing projects already scheduled
for region
• Need to determine methods for comparing and measuring
multi-modal information
• Need additional detection for better real-time arterial data
– Travel times from toll tags may be most cost effective
• Need for detailed system engineering knowledge
– Developing Concept of Operations and System Requirements
was system engineering intensive
– Use of consultants with experience was beneficial
Conclusions
• Individual agencies are operating their systems well
• Opportunities for advancement are in coordinated
management
• Need alternatives for travelers, especially transit
• Need common, reliable data platforms for decision
making
• Building on existing institutional arrangements was a key
to building consensus
• Need to build trust with the public on accuracy and
reliability of information